Luxembourg, 12/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - On 7 December, the Court of Justice of the European Communities issued a ruling stating that the directive on copyright in the information society provides that authors have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works. A hotel in Spain took the view that, as its rooms were of a private nature, the use of television sets and the playing of ambient music within the hotel were not subject to the provisions of that directive. The Court's position is in line with that of SGAE (the body responsible for the management of intellectual property rights in Spain) in this affair, namely that, even if the customers use the works in private, the distribution infrastructure is conceived in a way that makes them available to the public. This interpretation maintains status quo for a large part of the broadcasting sector, but its consequences in the hotel sector are less obvious.
SGAE was of the view that the use of television sets and ambient music within the hotel owned by Rafael involved communication to the public of works belonging to the repertoire which SGAE manages. Considering that those acts gave rise to breach of copyright, SGAE brought an action before the Spanish courts. The Audiencia Provicial (Provincial Court) of Barcelona referred the matter to the Court of Justice.
Several aspects of the case support the position taken by the Court. First and foremost, given the fact that hotel customers quickly succeed each other, involving a large number of persons, they can be considered a public having regard to the principal objective of the directive. While the mere provision of physical facilities does not as such amount to communication within the meaning of the directive, the installation of such facilities may nevertheless make public access to broadcast works technically possible. Therefore, if, by means of television sets thus installed, the hotel distributes the signal to customers staying in its rooms, a communication to the public takes place, irrespective of the technique used to transmit the signal. Finally, and above all, this interpretation is necessary to safeguard the authors' exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works, this being the main aim of the directive.
The Court also notes a large variety of circumstances in which the distribution of a work may be considered as public, while the viewing or listening is private, but nonetheless remains governed by the copyright directive. This right would be manifestly emptied of its substance if it did not also cover communications in private places (see, for example, video renting services). In the case in hand, therefore, it is a question of ensuring that hotels abide by the conditions already in force in the other public areas. (cd)